masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Modifications to Weapon Pages
Basically what this is intended to accomplish is to organize the "Models" section various weapon pages. Currently the tables for the weapons on the Heavy Weapons, Assault Rifles, and Shotguns pages are crammed due to the new skin and don't display properly. The table on the Sniper Rifles page does display properly, but the text is very cramped and there is a lot of really unnecessary space because of that. What these modifications are intended to accomplish is use the standard set on the Submachine Guns and Heavy Pistols page, which works and doesn't cram the text, and use it on all pages. And a variant of sorts is used on the Research page and on the pages already with the "Upgrades" sections. Now this doesn’t mean that we have to use the exact thing that is there, more can be added, but currently the tables just repeat a lot of information that would ordinarily be on the pages themselves, not reproduced, and IMHO, aren't really needed on the hub page. The SMG and HP pages present just the basics, which, again IMHO, is exactly what is needed on the hub pages. Personally I don't like tables if I can avoid them, and in this case, with the new skin, they just don't work very well in presenting all the information. I have already tried cutting it down, but it doesn't work very well. So thoughts or opinions are of course welcome. Voting ''VOTING HAS CLOSED AND THE PROPOSAL PASSES 2-1-1 For #As proposer. Lancer1289 06:24, April 2, 2011 (UTC) # Tentatively support ''as it '''currently stands''. Bear in mind the caveats listed below. SpartHawg948 19:29, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Neutral #I'll support the proposal if Spart's conditions are satisfied. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:21, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Against # The issues I have with it have not been addressed to my satisfaction, nor have I been convinced they're not issues. JakePT 08:21, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Comments I support this. I believe the page Lancer is proposing looks good, and is certainly better than the crunched up, over-informative tables. Arbington 06:54, March 20, 2011 (UTC) I like it, but have a few niggles. I'm fiddling with it on a Sandbox page and will show the changes I would make in a bit.JakePT 08:24, March 20, 2011 (UTC) :Ok, put up a page here with some changes. They are: :*Put the manufacturer on top. Didn't make sense having it in the middle. :*"Base Damage" is just "Damage". I think the 'Base' part was just superfluous because I don't think 'Damage' is ambiguous. :*'Damage Multipliers (Armor / Barriers / Shields)' is now just vs Armor / Barriers / Shields and the multipliers are in percentages, as that is how every other multiplier in the game is represented. This just reduces clutter. If it's too hard to understand, which I don't think it is, simply making it Damage vs Armor / Barriers / Shields will fix that, and still be less cluttered than the existing label. :*'Default Ammo' is just Ammo. Same reasoning as Damage. I think it goes without saying that these numbers are all before upgrades. :*Acquisition section is now labelled as Acquisition and the text is simply the name of, and a link to, the appropriate mission. Any notes can be placed in brackets. Having the exact information presented as a longer sentence doesn't really achieve anything. So those are my thoughts. JakePT 08:48, March 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah I have more than a few problems with that. :::*"Base Damage" shouldn't be renamed to "Damage" because "Damage" is quite ambiguous. This is because damage is affected by multiple factors, armor parts, powers, range, accuracy, part of body hit, etc., and putting just "Damage" there sends the wrong message. What it says is that is the damage the weapon does, it can't be modified in any way. "Base Damage" is much more appropriate in this case, which sends the correct message, that it can be added to. :::*"Default Ammo" I'm also going to have to stick with because of the issues I mentioned above for Base Damage. Ammo again sends the wrong message and it implies that it can't be upgraded to include more ammo, which isn't the case. :::*Damage Multipliers is also something I have a bit of a problem with. Mainly in the fact that it should be the original. This is how it is represented in the individual weapon pages. I am very much ok with the "Damage vs Armor / Barriers / Shields" however. :::*Acquisition section. This I do have a problem with. This section, thanks to the new standard can be drawn out a bit rather than just having a short snippet. Right now it isn't very detailed on the four pages where the weapons can be acquired, yet it is detailed a bit more on the HP and SMG page, which while not going into all the details, it does a much better job, IMHO. ::I'm not being uncomprising, I'm just pointing out why I think some of the sections work better and some things don't. If I didn't comment on something, then no complaints. Lancer1289 14:20, March 20, 2011 (UTC) :::Point by point: :::*I don't think it's that ambiguous, but whatever, not by biggest gripe. :::*At least have Base Ammo, I don't see why it's Base for Damage and Default for Ammo. :::*The original? Eh? No where in the game is it represented as a multiplication, that's just the format the forum poster chose, and % is the way every other upgrade or bonus is presented on the wiki. It's also less characters, which means less clutter and also makes it ever so slightly easier to quickly compare and stack with upgrades, which are measured in %. Obviously then I think the individual weapons pages should be in %. :::*New standard? Jumping the gun a bit here aren't we? I don't see any advantage in longer sentences, especially since in every single one of yours there is zero extra information, or even clarity. It's just extra words. "Dossier: Archangel" contains exactly the same information as "The Vindicator is acquired during mission to recruit Archangel." Except in the latter you have to click through to see what the actual mission is called in the Journal, and it names the weapon again, which is completely redundant. It's just superfluous. Even if there was extra detail, which there isn't, shouldn't it be saved for the Weapon's article? These lists are basically just a quick reference and not a complete guide on how to get them etc. :::JakePT 07:36, March 21, 2011 (UTC) ::::Yeah still problems. ::::*Since default ammo is what is used on the weapon pages, I think it is much more appropriate to use "Default Ammo" rather than "Base Ammo". To me it alos just makes more sense in terms of what it is talking about. "Default Damage" also doens't make much sense. ::::*As to the damage multipliers, that is not only how it is represented in the game, but in the forum post for were we source them. I think the formatting already present is more appropriate since that is what the devs are using, not +25%, but rather x1.25. ::::*It was merely a turn of phrase, there is just no need to jump down my throat about it. I however think that somewhat longer things, especially when it comes to things like the Widow and Claymore. You can't really clip that off. I personally favor the longer version, and while someone will no doubt say that "longer is not always better" in this case, it does need to be longer. ::::That's about it. Lancer1289 16:44, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Any further comments? Lancer1289 22:48, March 24, 2011 (UTC) Since this seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle of Arrival's release, any further comments and opening up a voting section above. Lancer1289 06:24, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :So... I kinda like both versions presented here (the original, and JakePT's modified version). What I'd like to see is the version presented by Lancer with the following changes: :*Manufacturer moved to the top, as JakePT suggested. It's far and away the most superfluous of the pieces of info, bearing no value whatsoever (other than its value as "gee whiz information"). As such, I see no reason to bury it in the middle of information that actually has a practical application. :*Secondly, I agree with JakePT's modification to the "Acquisition" section. The current version is just extra words that convey no more meaning than the condensed version. And I do like it short, sweet, and to the point. Longer is not always better, and in this case, it doesn't need to be longer. Not at all. I've yet to see a compelling case laid out in support of the extra verbiage. SpartHawg948 08:33, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::I forgot to move the manufacturer, so that has been dealt with. I still say the Acquisition line should be longer to just include something about where it can be found/where it is acquired from. An example of this is the line for the Tempest currently on the SMG page. I probably overdid it a little on some of them, but it can be shorter, but I still think a bit longer than currently is better. However since that seems to be against me, I have modified it to be short as possible. Since this will now also change the SMG and HP pages, I added those. I still say that a somewhat longer acquisition line would be a good idea. Lancer1289 18:53, April 2, 2011 (UTC) A small suggestion: for the Manufacturer blank, could the instances of "Unknown" be changed to "Unspecified"? Just a small change I'd like to see, not deal-breaking for me if it can't be done. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:25, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :(edit conflict) Yeah... the manufacturer move was something I'd like to see, but the shorter acquisition line is a definite sticking point. I'm liking what I see now, but I do feel the need to say that it's a deal-breaker for me. If we keep them short and to the point, I'll vote for it. Any longer than is absolutely necessary, and I'll vote against. Again, I have yet to see a case made for keeping the acquisition line longer. As we've seen, keeping it short and simple works well even for the Claymore and the Widow. It makes it much easier to read and breeze through. As JakePT said, it's a quick reference, not a walkthrough. SpartHawg948 19:28, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::I stated above that I made them as short as possible. If you have one that you think could be shorter, then please do say something but I don't think any can be shorter. If not then what else do you have a problem with. As for "Unknown" to "Unspecified", I really don't see a reason for changing it. Lancer1289 19:31, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :Wow. No need to get snippy. I already stated that I'm fine with them as is. I merely stated, since you said that keeping them longer is still a good idea, that I've yet to see any reason why this would be a good idea. You asked for input, and people are expected to provide it, so there's really no need to make people feel like crap for voicing their suggestions with comments like "what else do you have a problem with". If I'd had any more concerns, I would have expressed them already. However, I'd already made it clear that the current version is fine with me, so no need for the castigation, as if any objections I have are merely things I "have a problem with". SpartHawg948 19:54, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::I didn't mean to come across as snippy, but since that is the case, I apologize for that. I wasn't sure if you still had problems with anything and I wanted to make sure there wasn't something that I missed or overlooked given what you said in your vote above. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something that I overlooked and I was also unsure what you meant by "caveats" above. I could have misinterpreted something, and apparently I did. Lancer1289 20:01, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :::(edit conflict) By 'caveats', I was specifically referring to the comment that longer Acquisition blurbs are a deal-breaker for me. I also noted, however, that the caveats were already listed below, so any and all of these would have already been present here. Use of the phrase "If not then what else do you have a problem with" carried with it the implication that any concern I raised was less than valid or genuine, as it was just something I have a problem with, i.e. something I'm making a big deal of just to be problematic. And, given that I'd already changed my vote from against to for, and stated that I support it as is, I couldn't really see how you'd think I still had problems with it. I'd explicitly stated I no longer did. SpartHawg948 20:05, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::Ah so I did misinterpret something then, so let me try an explain. In the past when I have seen or heard "Tentatively support" in voting processes, usually that person still has a few reservations, having sometimes been that person. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something that was overlooked/ignored, or, if that person has a suggestion on how something could have been done better, then it is heard/addressed. I did not mean to imply that your concerns were less valid or genuine, or that you were just being problematic, but since I did, I again apologize for that. The sentence was meant to imply that if you have any more problems/concerns, no matter how small, then please do make them known so they can be addressed. Again I apologize for the misinterpretation. ::::As to the blurbs, I have given up on that since I have three people saying the same thing. Lancer1289 20:16, April 2, 2011 (UTC)